It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm
I don't hate anyone all tho you try to be annoying you
barely succeed at that. And debate isn't anything to get
all huffy about. With your whopping 20 flags I hardly expect
you to know so I'm telling you.
originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Are we talking about all/any intelligent design or merely the 7 day creationist kinda guys?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm
I don't hate anyone all tho you try to be annoying you
barely succeed at that. And debate isn't anything to get
all huffy about. With your whopping 20 flags I hardly expect
you to know so I'm telling you.
I don't try to be anything but true to myself. 20 flags...is that good? And if you aren't huffy, I would humbly request that you compose a case worthy of representing creationism in the court of law. If its worth doing, it's worth doing right.
If its worth doing, it's worth doing right.[/
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423
I got your point. The thing is, you are assuming that the standard by which the debate will be judged is a rational one.
Faith in rationality is also faith. As should be amply clear from the foregoing, it is not a faith shared by all here.
Randyvs's point deserves more consideration than it has received so far. He didn't articulate it well, but that's randy.
And before you tell me that objective truth trumps all other judgements, consider real life. Is it always, or even most often, the rational argument that convinces?
Did you watch the Republican presidential candidates 'debate' each other a couple of days ago? How rational was that?
originally posted by: Phantom423
And yes, science can prove pseudo science wrong.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Phantom423
A proper debate with rules that apply to both sides is the bane of creationism.
I do not believe any creationists will be up to the task.
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Are we talking about all/any intelligent design or merely the 7 day creationist kinda guys?
We're talking about real science vs pseudo science. It isn't about religions and belief in Intelligent Design. It's about the fraudulent misrepresentation of science by Creationists. You only need to read their "research" papers at icr.org to understand what I'm talking about.
People are certainly free to believe in their religious philosophies. Intelligent Design really comes down to the religious concept that God created the universe and everything in it. That's not what I'm arguing. I respect anyone's belief system. But an honest religious person who believes in God and that he/she created the universe et al will tell you that there is no scientific evidence to back up their beliefs. And that's fine. Scientists don't go into the lab to test the "God" hypothesis. Many outstanding scientists believe in God and Intelligent Design. Francis Collins who was head of the Human Genome Project is a Catholic. He also believed that he saw God in his work every day. And that's a good t hing. But he didn't go into his lab to FIND a God, or prove that there is a GOD. He went into his lab to do his God's work. That's the difference. It's also a rational, intelligent person who understands that there are some things that are the purview of science and some things that are not. A Bible, Torah or Koran doesn't give you the license to commit fraud.
Creationists take other people's work and reconstruct it to fit their pseudo science. That's a bad thing.
you cannot see that evolutionists are just as far up the creek on this.
"Rules" are the problem, they do not help in explaining those things which are not yet explained.
Stop trying to tell us we have to be one or the other
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Phantom423
A proper debate with rules that apply to both sides is the bane of creationism.
I do not believe any creationists will be up to the task.
What amuses me is that you cannot see that evolutionists are just as far up the creek on this.
"Rules" are the problem, they do not help in explaining those things which are not yet explained.
Stop trying to tell us we have to be one or the other
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
Cool straw man, bro. Also, neat job on erroneously conflating the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.
, clearly links Evolution with Abiogenesis.
ATS Library of Scientific Evidence for EVOLUTION